Obama's Next Target: The CIA

The Obama administration is preparing a grand downgrading of the Central Intelligence Agency’s lead role in the war on terror. The administration is contemplating expanding the FBI and Justice Department’s role in global counter-terrorism operations. In addition, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair wants to replace the CIA’s station chiefs with his own representatives. NewMajority asked retired FBI and CIA officials to comment on these issues.

Currently the FBI has jurisdiction for handling counter-terrorism domestically while the CIA has jurisdiction overseas. The CIA’s primary goal is to obtain intelligence for national security purposes while the FBI regards the information gained as part of the prosecution’s evidence. Prior to 9/11, policies were based on dealing with the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue. After 9/11, the policy was changed towards viewing the terrorist threat as a military/intelligence war. Currently, the Obama administration is leaning towards a policy of having a “law enforcement war on terror.”

If this law enforcement war on terror were to be implemented, the FBI would replace the CIA as the primary interrogators. The justification for this is that the Obama administration wants to balance getting the necessary intelligence and gathering sufficient evidence to prosecute the terrorists. One former FBI agent stated, “In our system we have due process… eventually we have to go ahead and prosecute them... Are we going to sacrifice secrecy for justice or are we going to sacrifice justice for secrecy?” Despite this, the sentiments of many CIA officials echo that of former CIA Director George Tenet. He states in his book, “The terrorists… were probably not losing much sleep over the doings of some U.S. district courts.”

Can the components of intelligence and law enforcement be brought together? Most of the retired CIA officials interviewed point out that in many circumstances their mission is different. One CIA operative stated, “The FBI’s position is to take pictures of everything — nobody touch anything. The CIA’s position is to take everything in this place. You take his (the terrorist’s overseas) cell phone, take his computer and not worry about the chain of evidence.”

There are numerous problems with President Obama’s proposed policy. Former FBI agent Craig Dotlo pointed out that the practicality of melding intelligence and evidence gathered is very difficult — especially in overseas operations. He stated, “When someone is captured, you want to find out the information right away. The time the (FBI) agent is able to talk to him (the captured terrorist) could be one day, two days, or four days later and the information he had might not be as valuable.” All the CIA officials interviewed concurred. The operative stated, “Where the CIA may have been able to get information from a guy as soon as he was captured, that opportunity may end with this new policy.”

Another option under consideration by the Obama administration is to give the terrorists Miranda rights. If the terrorists are given these rights another former CIA official noted that “they have no incentive to talk and would quickly lawyer up and shut up.” One other CIA official pointed out to NewMajority that Americans must make a choice between gaining actionable intelligence and giving the terrorists the same rights as Americans. He stated, “given a choice I would rather get the intelligence that helps us prevent a major terrorist attack rather than building up a case where we can indict somebody in a federal court, even if that means compromising your ability to prosecute terrorists.”

The other proposed policy is to reduce the CIA’s responsibilities by having DNI representatives replace CIA station chiefs. A former CIA station chief told NewMajority that this possible new policy was a grave mistake. The station chief’s responsibilities include being in charge of intelligence in a particular foreign country and building relationships with their foreign counterparts. He sums up his criticism by stating that “the DNI has no expertise (in the above areas), has not built up any liaison relationships, and should only set priorities but not start shifting around overall responsibilities. There is no substantive reason to do it. The only reason to do it is to assert their authority and make a bureaucratic point which is not a reason in itself.” A former operative pointed out that “no CIA guy is going to report to anybody except to the station chief.”

Overall, how do all of those interviewed feel about these proposed policy changes? Former CIA official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen stated that “this is a very dangerous game to make intelligence pay the price of what are actually political disputes by both sides. I hope we will not weaken our intelligence.” Former FBI agent Dolto explained that having this balancing act is a very difficult problem to solve and that it might come down to people having to “decide which is more important, the intelligence gained or the prosecution.” Regarding the FBI’s role in overseas interrogations, a former high ranking CIA official frustratingly noted “I would like to see someone else take responsibility for it. Everyone criticizes the CIA. I am kind of tired of the CIA being beaten up all the time… The CIA is the one institution that always gets the blame.”